Share this story

With StarCraft 2 in stores and World of WarCraft continuing to be a license to print money, a company's fancy may turn towards a certain hack-and-slash game called Diablo 3. During Activision's earnings call today, Blizzard CEO Mike Morhaime announced that an external beta would be launched during the third quarter of 2011, which means we could be playing the game as early as July.

The attitude of "when it's done" was clear from the call, as Morhaime stressed that Blizzard would release the game when it was happy with it, and not a moment before. "I want to be clear that we do not have an official release date or window yet," he said. However, Activision sent us the slides from the conference call, and here are the three bullet points put under the heading of Diablo 3:

Beginning company-wide internal testing

Targeting Q3 launch for external beta testing

Do not have an official release date or window yet, but driving hard to launch Diablo III this year

So there you go. There may not be any official date, but they're certainly aiming for a 2011 release. My opinion? Blizzard should take its time. We'll have plenty of games to play before now and then, and I'd rather have a more polished experience.

Blizzard has the right attitude about release dates. Blizzard produces surprisingly few games but pretty much all are big hits because it focuses on quality over quantity. A few more months of polish makes the difference between a game that's hot for a year and then declines and a game that's hot for a few years.

Does everyone remember how Duke Nukem Forever was for sure coming out this year, too?

I will believe it only after I have bought it, installed it, installed the 2.5GB patch you have to download because they did 50,000 last-minute changes after the DVDs were pressed, and finally gotten into it after three weeks of the activation servers falling over due to "unexpected load."

Then I'll lose the CD - becuase Blizzard are ass and refuse to sell via Steam* - curse like a sailor, give up and go back to being productive.

idk if i was just making things up in my mind but i thought i noticed that once a blizzard game hits beta, it is within a month or two of coming out. i know that happened with cataclysm.

Maybe, but the framework for WoW is already in place. D3 doesn't even look like it is using a remotely similar engine to the previous games. Once they go beta, they could and probably will discover a ton of issues that require extensive re-coding.

Diablo III has been on my most-wanted list since it was first announced. No doubt at the top. It was momentarily surpassed by Elemental: War of Magic last year. But what a disappointment that turned out to be.

But this is what scares me about Diablo III: Will Blizzard make it a great Single-Player experience? Or will we again be condemned to see new content being added to Battle.Net only as it was the case with Diablo II? I must confess a deep reverence for this company. But a distrust for their interest in providing a deep and enriching single-player experience.

Then I'll lose the CD - becuase Blizzard are ass and refuse to sell via Steam - curse like a sailor, give up and go back to being productive.

I completely understand your preference for Steam releases, as I feel the same way, but Blizzard has their own digital distribution service that they use only for their own games. It also allows you to re-download your games based upon physical copies, because once the key is linked to your Battle.net account, it is there to be re-downloaded. Now, they don't seem to sell that way on right at launch (at least, if I remember correctly, you couldn't do the digital download to buy SC2 until a couple of weeks after launch), but at least you never have to worry about losing the CD! It's not as awesome as Steam, but considering it means I won't need to buy Diablo 3 as many times as I did Diablo 2, it works for me.Edit: Beaten by Manic, because I decided to be wordy!

Now, they don't seem to sell that way on right at launch (at least, if I remember correctly, you couldn't do the digital download to buy SC2 until a couple of weeks after launch),

You were allowed to buy SC2 at Midnight Eastern from a physical store, or at 1PM eastern from blizzard's digital store. There wasn't very much of a lag between physical store launch and blizzard digital store launch.

Then I'll lose the CD - because Blizzard are ass and refuse to sell via Steam - curse like a sailor, give up and go back to being productive.

Blizzard now allows you to register your CD-KEY with your bnet account and that allows you to download the binary of any game you've registered.

I know. It's called sarcasm. I don't want to register my CD-Key with battle.net. I don't want to remember a dozen different user/pass combinations for a dozen different publishers. I want to use what is inarguably the dominant distribution mechanism - Steam - for everything. Why? Because it's simple, it updates my games for me, and when I come home from a day of fixing computers, the last [expletive deleted] thing I want to do is futz with the one at home.

Losing the physical disc or forgetting your battle.net credentials, it's all part of the same bucket. If it weren't for the fact that I am a Diablo addict, I honestly would give it a pass just because it's not on steam. Certainly, it's why I haven't bought Starcraft II. Indeed, Diablo III will be the only game in three years that I will have bought through any manner other than Steam…and I anticipate it will be the only one for at least the next three.

Then I'll lose the CD - because Blizzard are ass and refuse to sell via Steam - curse like a sailor, give up and go back to being productive.

Blizzard now allows you to register your CD-KEY with your bnet account and that allows you to download the binary of any game you've registered.

I know. It's called sarcasm. I don't want to register my CD-Key with battle.net. I don't want to remember a dozen different user/pass combinations for a dozen different publishers. I want to use what is inarguably the dominant distribution mechanism - Steam - for everything. Why? Because it's simple, it updates my games for me, and when I come home from a day of fixing computers, the last [expletive deleted] thing I want to do is futz with the one at home.

Losing the physical disc or forgetting your battle.net credentials, it's all part of the same bucket. If it weren't for the fact that I am a Diablo addict, I honestly would give it a pass just because it's not on steam. Certainly, it's why I haven't bought Starcraft II. Indeed, Diablo III will be the only game in three years that I will have bought through any manner other than Steam…and I anticipate it will be the only one for at least the next three.

I would much rather use Blizzard's Battle.net system than Steam. Why? Because it is customized to their specific games, integrate properly with their online systems, and allows you to download stand-alone applications as opposed to using their blanket program.

Schmads wrote:Now, they don't seem to sell that way on right at launch (at least, if I remember correctly, you couldn't do the digital download to buy SC2 until a couple of weeks after launch),

You were allowed to buy SC2 at Midnight Eastern from a physical store, or at 1PM eastern from blizzard's digital store. There wasn't very much of a lag between physical store launch and blizzard digital store launch.

I also remember having the option of downloading the entire digital version before the actual sale took place. That came in handy given that it was a 7-8 GB download. After that, what you pay for was the battle.net account.

I'll actually need to build a halfway decent PC for this one. The only bad part is that I don't like the Witch Doctor as a substitute for my necromancer. I really like zookeeper type characters, but it bothers me that my hero would have to constantly suffer from TDs.

idk if i was just making things up in my mind but i thought i noticed that once a blizzard game hits beta, it is within a month or two of coming out. i know that happened with cataclysm.

It's usually a lot longer, actually. WoW itself was in public beta for almost a year before being released.

That said, their QA and iteration speeds may be a lot higher these days, so they may only need a few months. Especially if they're already done fairly thorough testing in-house. Plus things like SC2 and original WoW need more public testing, because they're inherently PvP-oriented games (WoW to a much lesser extent, but the Horde vs Alliance thing is still a key part of the game), compared to something like Diablo which is mostly a co-op experience.

I tell ya, Blizzard rocks my world. I'm sure it helps that they actually have the money to say, "It's done when it's done", but I wish more game companies would make that their creed.

DICE is pushing to release Battlefield 3, and at the rate they're developing this game and trying to get it out the door you *KNOW* it's going to be a sloppy, buggy, half-finished mess of a game. And if you don't know that, well... then I guess you're an ignorant dasiy-throwing fanboi. What else can I say?

Then I'll lose the CD - because Blizzard are ass and refuse to sell via Steam - curse like a sailor, give up and go back to being productive.

Blizzard now allows you to register your CD-KEY with your bnet account and that allows you to download the binary of any game you've registered.

I know. It's called sarcasm. I don't want to register my CD-Key with battle.net. I don't want to remember a dozen different user/pass combinations for a dozen different publishers. I want to use what is inarguably the dominant distribution mechanism - Steam - for everything. Why? Because it's simple, it updates my games for me, and when I come home from a day of fixing computers, the last [expletive deleted] thing I want to do is futz with the one at home.

Losing the physical disc or forgetting your battle.net credentials, it's all part of the same bucket. If it weren't for the fact that I am a Diablo addict, I honestly would give it a pass just because it's not on steam. Certainly, it's why I haven't bought Starcraft II. Indeed, Diablo III will be the only game in three years that I will have bought through any manner other than Steam…and I anticipate it will be the only one for at least the next three.

I'm surprised you bothered registering on Ars, yet another password to remember just to post inane comments. Using your same logic, you should only support websites that use Facebook integration.

Also, Starcraft 2 automatically updates through BNet, I imagine Diablo 3 will be the same. In fact, you can tell it to remember your password for you (and if you're wise, use a password management system of some kind just in case you forget it). You can also buy a digital copy, no entering a CD key at all (same as if you buy a physical copy and register it through Steam).

Personally, I like the competition, it keeps Valve on their feet. They keep a better system than Direct2Drive and the like going and they have good sales because they have to compete with so many other sources. Good stuff, not bad.

Does everyone remember how Duke Nukem Forever was for sure coming out this year, too?

There's a pretty big difference between a very established studio with a large number of extremely-successful game releases and extraordinarily valuable franchises, and a relatively new studio working with an IP that has not been utilized in a hit for the better part of the last decade and a half.

Blizzard puts out a new game once every like, three years or something. In most companies this would be an absolute disaster, but somehow, Blizzard manages to ensure that its games are viable on store shelves long past its development time.

I mean, how many other games at your EBGames/GameStop can you buy, brand new, that are from over six years ago? Not many other companies in high-tech can still brag that they're selling boxes that date back to 2004.

I would much rather use Blizzard's Battle.net system than Steam. Why? Because it is customized to their specific games, integrate properly with their online systems, and allows you to download stand-alone applications as opposed to using their blanket program.

To each thier own. I am not a hardcore gamer. I am a casual gamer. I want to come home and have all of my games taken care of for me. I want a single interface to say "let's remove that game from my system and install that one instead." If I buy a new PC, then I want to be able to download a single interface (Steam,) log in once and have the thing bring over and install whichever game I choose. No fuss, no muss.

With the singular exception of Diablo III - and only because I loved Diablo I so much - I simply don't buy games unless they are on Steam. I don't have the time to muss around with it anymore. I'm not a student, I'm not some single thirty-something. I'm engaged, have an active social life and three jobs. I just want the damned thing to work, track all my games, and not bother me about patches, etc. I really don't give a damn if it's "fully integrated' with the games or not. Those games that are, bonus. Those that aren't, well...the "basic integration" seems to work just fine for me so far.

I wish Microsoft would get it's act together and get a "Steam for Windows applications" going. Instead, we have dozens of different companies providing different mechanisms. Would you like to update your Adobe products? Java needs an update! You have 37 Microsoft updates today! Wyse PocketCloud Windows Companion has an update! Update mIRC today! Tweetdeck wants to update, but update Adobe first! Dropbox has an update! Firefox has an update, and after restart, so do 24 of it's plugins!

You know what? NO.

I am just not down with this for my video games. It's bad enough I have to deal with this disorganised "application specific" [very vile expletive deleted] for the non-gaming applications every single day of my entire life.

There is a games box at home. It has Windows 7. It has Steam. It has NOTHING ELSE except those programs delivered via Steam. Diablo III will be the one exception to that.

I tell ya, Blizzard rocks my world. I'm sure it helps that they actually have the money to say, "It's done when it's done", but I wish more game companies would make that their creed.

DICE is pushing to release Battlefield 3, and at the rate they're developing this game and trying to get it out the door you *KNOW* it's going to be a sloppy, buggy, half-finished mess of a game. And if you don't know that, well... then I guess you're an ignorant dasiy-throwing fanboi. What else can I say?

Was I complaining that it was unlikely to be released this year? No. I was complaining about virtually every other aspect of the PC gaming experience, but I am honestly 100% behind taking exactly as long as it requires to get the product done properly. I prefer if they push it back to 2012, if that means we end up with a better game.

No, my comment was not a complaint about "lag," simply an expression of disbelief regarding a 2011 timeframe.

Edit: as for DICE...what have they ever coded that wasn't a flaming sack of crap? Don't get me wrong, I <3 Battlefield 2...but that is despite DICE's engine, not because of it. In fact, among my peer group, DICE engines are such a joke that in every instance where a comment is made about the laws of physics being violated in popular media, the quip is inevitably made:

Every word Astlor writes, I read in a whiny 15 year old voice. Sorry dude. You got called out for not really having a valid complaint in the first place and now you're just making a larger ass of yourself.

I love Steam as much as the next guy but Battle.Net isn't really any different (if at all, it's honestly a bit more polished).

Edit: And I just knew you were a developer. You sound exactly like a guy I used to work with. Your name isn't Tom, is it? Hahaha

Diablo III has been on my most-wanted list since it was first announced. No doubt at the top. It was momentarily surpassed by Elemental: War of Magic last year. But what a disappointment that turned out to be.

But this is what scares me about Diablo III: Will Blizzard make it a great Single-Player experience? Or will we again be condemned to see new content being added to Battle.Net only as it was the case with Diablo II? I must confess a deep reverence for this company. But a distrust for their interest in providing a deep and enriching single-player experience.

Apparently Elemental just got some massive patch. Maybe you should give it another chance.

Every word Astlor writes, I read in a whiny 15 year old voice. Sorry dude. You got called out for not really having a valid complaint in the first place and now you're just making a larger ass of yourself.

I love Steam as much as the next guy but Battle.Net isn't really any different (if at all, it's honestly a bit more polished).

Excepting I wasn't making a complaint, really. I was being sarcastic. Now, it's true that when you get right down to it, I really don't like publishers who refuse to play with Steam, but that was not really remotely the meaning behind the original post. It was intended to be a bit of humorous sarcasm poking fun at the modern PC gaming experience. Some folks evidently took it as an affront to the holy Blizzard, and we can't have that, can we?

They’re games (and game development/publishing companies,) not cults. They provide some worthwhile entertainment in a convenient-enough package for the end user or they go home. For the dedicated, having a dozen different distribution methods is fine. For the very casual gamer like me, not so much.

It’s not a contest, and it’s not an attack. It’s simply the reality of the market. You might as well get your irish up because a guy says “you know what, I don’t want to root my smartphone just to install your application. I want it available through the market/iStore that comes with the phone, or I’ll just do without.” That’s not a complaint, or an attack.

Laziness? I’ll buy that. “Complaint?” No. Dark humour. I gave up trying to complain about this crap ages ago. It doesn’t go anywhere, the companies don’t listen to individuals…only to wallets. I vote with my wallet. Simple as that.

Oh excellent! Once Diablo 3 is out, they can start work on a yearly release schedule for Diablo, starting with Diablo 4. You'll get two classes at launch and all the rest will be released across several "expansion" pack DLC. The final battle with Diablo will also be available as "premium" DLC which requires a subscription to keep the battle current on a monthly basis, just because they can.

I'm trying to figure out why Astlor isn't gaming on a 360. It seems like the perfect fit.

Honest truth? Two reasons:

1) As a sysadmin, I generally have a fair amount of high-end hardware lying around. So I usually have enough spare bits to build a gaming PC for "free." (Mid-range video card every three eyars or so is cheap.)*

2) Many of the games I like - mostly RTSes - aren't available on the 360. Those that are don't (generally) let me use a keyboard and mouse. As much as I hate to admit it, I absolutely cannot game with an XBOX controller, no matter how hard I try.

If the next XBOX uses keyboard/mouse as standard inputs for all games, I would seriously consider it. Even though that would leave me with a pile of unused gaming-class hardware.

*For example, I am building my fiancee a "Dragon Age" computer. (She games far more than I do.) Current specs are: Asus KFSN5-D /w 2x Shanghai 2.4Ghz Quad core CPUs, 16GB RAM, 6x Raptor 74GB in RAID 10 /w 1 hot spare, ATI 4850. It is just spare parts from my last home server upgrade. (I bought the video card off a buddy who was upgrading for about $100).

I also remember having the option of downloading the entire digital version before the actual sale took place. That came in handy given that it was a 7-8 GB download. After that, what you pay for was the battle.net account.

Yes,

I went the advance digital-download route for both StarCraft II and the Cataclysm expansion for WoW.

Retailers have to be getting nervous that a -significant- number of people have opted for Blizz's advance purchase via download - which allowed me to download the files, while preventing me from playing them until the servers came online on release day.

I could have started playing both games earlier - if I had gone to a midnight event at a local store - but I'm getting too old for that shit...

EDIT: Makes me wonder how much longer retailers will have any reason to have "midnight release parties" for Blizzard games.

I'm trying to figure out why Astlor isn't gaming on a 360. It seems like the perfect fit.

Honest truth? Two reasons:

1) As a sysadmin, I generally have a fair amount of high-end hardware lying around. So I usually have enough spare bits to build a gaming PC for "free." (Mid-range video card every three eyars or so is cheap.)*

2) Many of the games I like - mostly RTSes - aren't available on the 360. Those that are don't (generally) let me use a keyboard and mouse. As much as I hate to admit it, I absolutely cannot game with an XBOX controller, no matter how hard I try.

If the next XBOX uses keyboard/mouse as standard inputs for all games, I would seriously consider it. Even though that would leave me with a pile of unused gaming-class hardware.

*For example, I am building my fiancee a "Dragon Age" computer. (She games far more than I do.) Current specs are: Asus KFSN5-D /w 2x Shanghai 2.4Ghz Quad core CPUs, 16GB RAM, 6x Raptor 74GB in RAID 10 /w 1 hot spare, ATI 4850. It is just spare parts from my last home server upgrade. (I bought the video card off a buddy who was upgrading for about $100).

At first I wondered if you were a troll but decided you weren't: you said something sarcastic and probably could have left it at that.

Now you are seemingly getting trolled by half of the ars community because they are feeling frisky.